GIFT 

OF 

....          ...                                ..      ./. 

WILL  CHRIST 
COME  AGAIN? 


An  Exposure  of  the  Foolishness, 

Fallacies  and  Falsehoods  of 

Shailer  Mathers 


By!  R.  A.  TORREY 

Dean  of  HTxe  Bible  Institute  of  Los  Angeles 


BIBLE  INSTITUTE  OF  LOS  ANGELES 

536-558  South  Hope  Street 
LOS  ANGELES,  "CALIFORNIA 


Copyright,  1918 

B>>  R.  A.  TORRET 


"WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN?"     AN  EXPOSURE 

OF    THE    FOOLISHNESS,    FALLACIES    AND 

FALSEHOODS  OF  SHAILER  MATHEWS. 

One  of  the  most  dangerous  and  harmful  pamphlets 
or  books  published  in  the  last  year  or  two  is  the  leaflet  of 
Shailer  Mathews  entitled,  "Will  Christ  Come  Again?"  The 
American  Institute  of  Sacred  Literature,  with  the  large 
resources  at  its  command,  seems  to  have  put  forth  its 
strongest  efforts  to  get  this  pamphlet  into  the  hands  of 
every  minister  and  prominent  Christian  worker  in  the  land. 
In  this  attempt  they  have  had  the  earnest  and  active  co-oper- 
ation of  many  influential  ministers  and  religous  bodies. 
When  the  pamphlet  first  appeared  it  seemed  to  many 
thoughtful  people  as  though  the  reasoning  of  the  pamphlet 
was  so  weak  and  many  of  the  statements  so  manifestly  false 
that  the  pamphlet  would  do  good  rather  than  harm  by 
serving  to  open  the  eyes  of  many  to  the  weakness  of  the 
cause  of  the  postmillenarians,  who  felt  compelled  to  resort 
to  such  methods  as  those  illustrated  in  the  pamphlet  to 
prop  up  their  waning  cause.  In  point  of  fact  this  pamphlet 
has  had  this  expected  effect  upon  a  great  many;  but  on  the 
other  hand  many  were  so  determined  that  they  would  not 
be  premillenarians  that  they  have  been  ready  to  cordially 
welcome  anything  that  attacked  premillenarianism,  even 
though  it  was  full  of  the  poison  of  unbelief.  Further  than 
this,  not  a  few  have  been  blinded  by  the  subtleties  of  the 
pamphlet.  A  striking  illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  the  Women's  Foreign  Missionary  Society  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  one  of  the  most  honored  and 
influential  missionary  societies  in  this  country,  has  sent  a 
copy  of  this  pamphlet  to  every  one  of  the  five  hundred  mis- 
sionaries that  they  support  in  different  parts  of  the  world, 
earnestly  commending  the  pamphlet,  and  the  wife  of  one 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  a  gifted 
and  influential  woman,  Mrs.  Clotilda  L.  McDowell,  has 

392686 


written  a  letter  ^9.. each,  of  th^se  missionaries,  sending  it 
with  til?,  ^ffcplllEt.-ariq  Sctyjrig' .in  it:  "The  enclosed  leaflet, 
stating  as  it  does,  with  substantial  accuracy,  the  position 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  this  important  ques- 
tion." It  certainly  is  startling  when  a  foreign  missionary 
society,  led  by  a  woman  of  Mrs.  McDowell's  influence, 
endorses  officially  a  pamphlet  which  not  only  attacks  the 
premillennial  theory  of  our  Lord's  return,  but  denies  in  the 
plainest  terms  that  He  will  ever  come  again  at  all  personally 
and  bodily,  and  furthermore,  discredits  and  sneers  at  the 
clear  teaching  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Apostles, 
and  constantly  seeks  to  undermine  confidence  in  the  abso- 
lute reliability  of  the  Scriptures  of  both  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New.  On  page  21  of  this  pamphlet  are  found  these 
words :  "Will  Christ  come  again  1  We  answer  in  all 
reverence,  not  in  the  sense  in  which  the  early  Christians 
(and  from  the  whole  pamphlet  it  is  evident  that  in  "the 
early  Christians"  Shailer  Mathews  includes  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Apostles)  .  .  .  expected.  Never  in  the  sense 
that  the  premillenarians  of  today  assert  (i.e.,  as  the  imme- 
diate context  in  the  pamphlet  makes  clear,  personally,  vis- 
ibly, bodily)."  We  are  informed  by  another  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  Mrs.  McDowell  and  the 
Board  had  no  right  to  take  this  action,  and  we  presume 
that  this  Bishop  is  correct  in  his  statement,  but  neverthe- 
less the  Board  took  it,  and  it  is  a  striking  illustration  of 
the  peril  that  there  is  in  the  pamphlet. 

It  is  not  pleasant  to  say  about  any  man,  but  especially 
about  a  man  who  has  occupied  so  high  a  position  in  the 
educational  world  and  in  the  organzed  church  as  that  occu- 
pied by  Dr.  Shailer  Mathews,  the  things  which  we  shall 
be  forced  to  say  in  this  review  of  his  pamphlet,  but  Dr. 
Mathews  has  himself  compelled  it.  He  has  attacked,  not 
openly  it  is  true,  but  none  the  less  really  because  insidiously, 
the  honor  of  God's  Word,  the  Bible,  and  of  God's  Son,  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  He  has  said  most  con- 
temptuous and  slanderous  things  about  both,  as  we  shall 
show  further  on,  and  the  man  who  attacks  the  honor  and 
truthfulness  of  my  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  who  seeks  to 
undermine  faith  in  that  Book  that  I  know  to  be  the  Word 


of  God,  I  feel  compelled  to  contend  against  and  to  speak 
about  in  the  frankest  terms,  no  matter  who  he  is  nor  what 
position  he  may  occupy.  In  speaking  of  him  as  "Shailer 
Mathews,"  without  the  use  of  the  titles  which  belong  to 
him,  no  disrespect  is  intended,  but  he  so  signs  himself.  He 
uses  no  titles  on  the  title  page  of  his  pamphlet.  We  confess 
that  we  respect  him  all  the  more  for  this.  A  great  man 
does  not  need  titles.  But  Shailer  Mathews,  if  any  man, 
has  a  right  to  use  titles.  He  has  been  given  the  honorary 
degree  of  D.D.  by  three  colleges :  Colby,  Oberlin  and  Brown 
University.  He  has  received  the  honorary  degree  LL.D. 
from  Pennsylvania  State  College.  From  1899  to  1908  he 
occupied  the  position  of  Dean  of  the  Divinity  School,  and 
from  1908  to  the  present  time  of  the  University  of  Chicago. 
Shailer  Mathews  is  in  reality  a  far  more  able  man  and  a 
far  better  scholar  and  a  far  more  intelligent  reasoner  than 
appears  from  this  pamphlet.  In  this  pamphlet  he  has  ven- 
tured to  write  upon  a  subject  to  which  he  has  given  no 
thorough  and  honest  study.  Indeed  his  ignorance  of  the 
views  and  teachings  of  those  whom  he  attacks — the  pre- 
millenarians — is  sometimes  startling.  Furthermore,  he  has 
allowed  himself  in  this  instance  to  be  governed  by  his  very 
violent  and  bitter  prejudices  rather  than  by  his  reasoning 
faculties,  and  thus  has  been  betrayed  into  the  fallacies  and 
falsehoods  that  characterize  the  pamphlet  from  beginning 
to-  end.  There  is  reason  for  thinking  that  his  deepest  preju- 
dices are  not  so  much  against  the  premillenarian  view  of  the 
Second  Coming  of  Christ  as  against  the  Divine  authorty  and 
inerrancy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Inspired  Apos- 
tles, and  that  this  professed  attack  upon  premillenarianism 
is  really  intended  to  be  a  camouflaged  attack  upon  the 
authority  and  reliability  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  which  he  did  not  dare  to  attack  directly  and 
openly. 

Let  me  say  at  the  outset  that  the  great  fault  of  the 
pamphlet  and  the  great  danger  that  lies  in  it  is  not  that  it 
attacks  the  premillennial  view  of  our  Lord's  return,  but 
that  it  persistently  and  constantly  seeks  to  discredit  the 
teachings  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  holy  men  of 
God  whom  God,  by  His  Holy  Spirit,  inspired  to  write  the 


New  Tesatment  Scriptures.  If  Shailer  Mathews  is  right 
in  his  statements,  then  Jesus  Christ,  as  we  shall  show  later, 
was  either  an  egregious  fool  or  a  consummate  fraud.  We 
shall  see  further  on  that  there  is  no  escaping  this  conclusion. 
To  me  the  question  of  whether  our  Lord  Jesus  is  coming 
before  the  millennium  or  after  the  millennium,  or  even  the 
question  whether  He  is  coming  again  to  this  earth  visibly 
and  bodily  at  any  time,  is  an  entirely  secondary  question. 
The  question  of  whether  the  inspired  Apostles  were  infal- 
lible teachers  or  not,  and  above  all  the  question  whether 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  an  infallible  teacher  or  not,  is  of 
the  very  first  importance.  That  Jesus  Chrst  claimed  to  be 
a  teacher  sent  from  God,  who  spoke  the  very  words  of  God, 
admits  of  no  honest  question  (see  John  12:48,  49 ;x  14:24; 
John  7:16).  If  our  Lord  Jesus  was  not  a  teacher  sent  from 
God,  who  spoke  the  very  words  of  God,  a  Divinely  inspired 
and  absolutely  infallible  teacher,  then  He  was  either  a  sadly 
deluded  fanatic  or  a  deliberate  liar.  If  He  were  either  one 
or  the  other  I  must  refuse  to  believe  on  Him,  and  become 
an  infidel.  There  is  no  middle  ground  for  any  logical 
thinker  to  take.  There  is  not  enough  of  the  intellectual 
trickster  about  me,  even  if  there  is  about  Shailer  Mathews 
and  his  school,  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  either  a  sadly 
deluded  fanatic  or  a  deliberate  liar  and  still  claim  to  believe 
in  Him  as  my  Saviour  and  Lord.  But  our  Lord  Jesus  was 
neither  a  sadly  deluded  fanatic  nor  a  deliberate  liar,  He 
was  what  He  claimed  to  be,  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  who 
spoke  the  very  words  of  God,  a  Divinely  inspired  and  abso- 
lutely infallible  teacher.  Yes,  He  was  more  than  that;  He 
was  so  entirely,  even  during  His  earthly  life,  God  manifest 
in  the  flesh,  that  He  could  say  truly :  "He  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father"  (John  14:9),  and  could  say  again 
concerning  Himself :  "All  men  should  honor  the  Son,  even 
as  they  honor  the  Father"  (John  5:23).  God  Almighty  has 
set  His  seal  to  these  stupendous  claims  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
by  raising  Him  from  the  dead ;  and  by  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  which  can  be  easily  shown 
to  be  one  of  the  best  proven  facts  of  history,  Shailer 
Mathews,  in  seeking,  even  though  it  be  in  underhanded  ways 
and  with  much  subtlety,  to  discredit  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 


is  proven  to  be  a  blasphemer.  So  much  by  way  of  intro- 
duction. 

Now  we  are  ready  for  a  direct  examination  of  some 
of  the  childish  follies  and  absurd  fallacies  and  gross  false- 
hoods and  insidious  blasphemies  of  Shailer  Matthews' 
pamphlet. 

Dr.  Mathews  begins  his  pamphlet  with  these  words : 
"Will  Christ  come  again?  Some  say  yes,  and  immediately. 
Others  say,  when  did  he  ever  go  away?  He  is  present 
spiritually.  Has  he  not  promised  to  be  with  us  even  to  the 
end  of  the  age?  These  two  answers  are  the  outcome  of 
two  ways  of  using  the  Bible.  Which  is  correct?" 

In  what  immediately  follows  and  in  his  whole  booklet 
Shailer  Matthews  makes  it  plain  that  he  believes  that  the 
latter  "way  of  using  the  Bible"  is  correct.  So  the  primary 
question  that  Shailer  Mathews  puts  in  his  pamphlet,  and 
which  he  implies  cannot  be  answered,  is,  "When  did  He 
(i.e.,  our  Lord  Jesus)  ever  go  away?"  How  any  student 
of  the  Bible,  even  of  ordinary  intelligence  and  honesty, 
could  ask  such  a  question  it  is  difficult  to  understand. 
Shailer  Mathews'  question  is  not  difficult  to  answer.  Our 
Lord  Jesus  Himself  answered  the  question ;  He  answered  it, 
for  example,  in  John  14:28  where  He  says:  "Ye  heard 
how  I  said  to  you,  I  GO  AWAY,  and  I  come  unto  you. 
If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would  have  rejoiced,  because  /  go  unto 
the  Father:  for  the  Father  is  greater  than  I."  Now  if  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  meant  anything  by  these  words,  and  He 
certainly  meant  something  for  He  was  not  a  fool,  He  meant 
to  say  that  He  was  GOING  AWAY  to  the  Father  in 
Heaven.  So  Jesus  Christ  Himself  tells  us  when  He  went 
away.  He  went  away  when,  after  having  been  crucified 
and  raised  again,  He  ascended  from  Mount  Olivet,  leaving 
this  world  behind  and  going  to  another  world,  from  which 
other  world  some  day,  as  indicated  here  and  more  plainly 
stated  elsewhere ,  He  is  coming  back  again.  Shailer 
Mathews'  question  is  also  answered  in  the  first  chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  the  ninth  verse  where  we  read : 
"And  when  He  had  said  these  things,  as  they  zvere  looking, 
He  was  taken  up:  and  a  cloud  received  Him  out  of  their 
sight."  In  these  words  Luke,  who,  to  say  nothing  of  his 

5 


inspiration,  was  a  very  accurate  historian,  tells  us  distinctly 
WHEN  THE  LORD  JESUS  WENT  AWAY.  It  was 
when  the  disciples  were  gathered  on  Mount  Olivet  and 
when  He  had  given  them  His  parting  injunction  (verses 
4-9),  and  then  while  they  were  looking  HE  WENT  AWAY 
and  was  received  up  "out  of  their  sight."  The  Apostle 
Peter  also  answers  the  question  in  Acts  3:19-21:  "Repent 
ye  therefore,  and  turn  again,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out,  and  that  so  there  may  come  seasons  of  refreshing  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord;  and  that  HE  MAY  SEND  THE 
CHRIST  who  hath  been  appointed  for  you,  even  Jesus: 
WHOM  THE  HEAVEN  MUST  RECEIVE  UNTIL 
THE  TIMES  OF  RESTORATION  OF  ALL  THINGS, 
whereof  God  spake  by  the  mouth  of  His  holy  prophets 
that  have  been  from  of  old."  Peter  here  distinctly  tells  us 
just  when  the  Lord  Jesus  went  away  and  just  where  He 
went  and  how  long  He  is  to  stay  there.  The  Apostle  Paul 
also  answered  Shailer  Mathews'  question  in  1  Thess.  1 :9, 
10  where  we  read :  "For  they  themselves  report  concern- 
ing us  what  manner  of  entering  in  we  had  unto  you ;  and 
how  ye  turned  unto  God  from  idols,  to  serve  a  living  and 
true  God,  and  TO  WAIT  FOR  HIS  SON  FROM 
HEAVEN,  whom  he  raised  from  the  dead,  even  Jesus,  who 
delivereth  us  from  the  wrath  to  come."  Here  Paul  dis- 
tinctly tells  us  that  Jesus,  having  been  raised  from  the 
dead,  left  this  earth  and  went  away  into  Heaven,  and  that 
a  truly  converted  and  properly  instructed  man  is  waiting 
for  Him  to  come  back  again.  Of  course,  we  all  know  that 
there  is  a  sense  in  which  Jesus  is  here  today,  that  "He  is 
here  spiritually,"  that  He  has  promised  to  be  with  us  by 
His  Holy  Spirit  to  the  end  of  the  age,  if  \ve  go  forth  accord- 
ing to  His  commandment,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the 
nations  (Matt.  28:18-20;  cf.  John  14:15-23).  Premillen- 
arians  insist  upon  this  as  much  as  postmillenarians,  or 
rather  more  than  postmillenarians ;  but  the  Bible  makes  it 
just  as  plain,  that  He  is  not  here  in  the  way  that  He  was 
here  during  His  bodily  presence  on  earth  before  His  bodily 
ascension  from  Olivet,  and  in  the  way  that  He  is  to  be  here 
again  when  He  comes  the  second  time.  The  Bible  makes 
it  as  plain  as  day  that  Jesus  went  away  from  this  world 


from  Mount  Olivet,  that  He  went  into  Heaven,  and  that 
He  is  to  stay  in  Heaven  until  the  appointed  time  comes 
for  Him  to  come  back  again.  Such  words  as  those  with 
which  Shailer  Mathews  opens  his  book  are  simply  an 
attempt,  and  a  weak  and  foolish  attempt,  to  throw  dust  into 
the  eyes  of  unthinking  men  and  women.  Of  course,  if  one 
is  determined  not  to  discover  and  accept  the  plain  meaning 
of  God's  Word,  he  can  spiritualize  away  the  plain  gram- 
matical, "historical"  intended  sense  of  these  numerous  pas- 
sages which  I  have  quoted;  but  he  can  only  do  it  by  a 
method  of  interpretation  by  which  one  can  also  make  the 
Bible  mean  anything  he  likes,  and  can  make  lying  to  be  as 
acceptable  unto  God  as  truth,  and  greed,  covetousness  and 
stealing  as  acceptable  to  God  as  self-sacrifice,  and  adultery 
as  acceptable  to  God  as  holy  married  love.  Listen  to  Shailer 
Mathews'  own  system  of  interpretation  as  described  by 
himself  in  this  same  booklet.  He  says  on  page  8:  "The 
other  way  to  use  the  Bible,  (i.e.,  the  way  that  Shailer 
Mathews  is  himself  advocating  in  this  pamphlet),  some- 
times called  the  historical,  might  be  called  the  common  sense 
way.  Those  evangelicals  who  hold  to  it  are  not  beyond 
making  mistakes  for  this  method  is  not  without  difficulties 
of  detail,  but  they  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  prophets  and 
apostles  by  the  spirit  of  God.  (Let  me  call  attention  to 
the  fact  in  passing  that  Shailer  Mathews  spells  "Spirit  of 
God"  with  a  small  s.  We  thought  when  the  first  edition 
of  this  pamphlet  appeared  that  this  might  have  been  a  typo- 
graphical error,  but  it  is  repeated  in  the  later  editions,  and 
from  this  and  other  facts  this  is  evidently  intentional). 
They  know  that  this  inspiration  was  progressive,  accumu- 
lative, dependent  upon  and  fitted  to  successive  periods  of 
human  intelligence.  Evidence  compels  them  to  believe  that 
many  of  the  BELIEFS  OF  THE  EARLY  CHRISTIANS 
(by  "beliefs  of  the  early  Christians"  Shailer  Mathews  means 
the  teachings  of  the  inspired  apostles,  and  even  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  Himself,  though  he  is  not  courageous  nor 
honest  enough  to  come  right  out  and  say  so,  but  his  whole 
pamphlet  unmistakably  shows  that  this  is  his  meaning)  can 
be  understood  only  as  they  are  studied  in  the  light  of  the 
habits  of  thought  prevalent  in  their  times.  Historically- 

7 


minded  students  of  the  Bible  distinguish  between  funda- 
mental Christian  truths  and  the  method  and  language  used 
by  the  early  Christians  in  expressing  these  truths.  (The 
italics  here  are  Shailer  Mathews').  They  believe  that  in 
order  to  realize  these  truths  THE  CONCEPTIONS  OF 
THESE  ANCIENT  MEN  OF  GOD  HAVE  TO  BE 
TRANSLATED  INTO  MODERN  CONCEPTIONS 
exactly  as  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  language  has  to  be  trans- 
lated into  English."  Shailer  Mathews  calls  the  method  of 
Bible  interpretation  he  here  advocates,  the  "historical 
method."  It  is  absolutely  nothing  of  the  sort.  The  "his- 
torical" method  of  Biblical  interpretation  has  a  clearly 
defined  sense.  The  real  "historical"  method  of  interpreta- 
tion is  this,  that  the  words  in  the  Bible  should  be  inter- 
preted according  to  their  grammatical  construction  and  in 
the  light  of  the  historical  usage  of  the  day,  and  to  that 
method  of  interpretation  no  intelligent  student  of  the  Bible 
has  any  objection.  Shailer  Mathews,  however,  has  sub- 
stituted for  this  really  "historical"  method  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent method  of  interpretation,  and  calls  it  the  "historical" 
method,  which  it  is  not  at  all.  He  also  calls  it  ffthe  common 
sense  way,"  but  if  any  one  will  look  at  it  a  moment  he  will 
see  that  so  far  from  being  "the  common  sense  way"  it  is 
absolute  nonsense.  It  is  a  method  of  interpretation  that 
no  translator  outside  of  a  lunatic  asylum  would  dream  of 
applying  to  Plato,  Homer,  Virgil,  Horace,  or  to  any  book 
but  the  Bible.  Shailer  Mathews  says  further :  "The  con- 
ceptions of  these  ancient  men  of  God  have  to  be  translated 
into  modern  conceptions  exactly  as  the  Hebrew  or  Greek 
language  has  to  be  translated  into  English."  A  few  moments 
consideration  will  show  that  these  words  also  of  Shailer 
Mathews'  are  absolute  nonsense.  Translating  Hebrew  and 
Greek  words,  and  grammatical  constructions  and  idioms 
into  their  exactly  corresponding  English  words,  construc- 
tions and  idioms  is  one  thing,  a  reasonable  and  common 
sense  thing,  but  translating  THE  THOUGHTS  of  "ancient 
men  of  God,"  or  any  one  else,  INTO  OTHER 
THOUGHTS  utterly  alien  to  their  own  and  oftentimes 
flatly  contradicting  their  own,  is  not  translation  at  all,  and 
this  whole  sentence  is  simply  a  ridiculous  attempt  to  defend 

8 


the  substitution  by  Shailer  Mathews  and  others  of  their 
evolutionary  (and  revolutionary)  vagaries,  for  what  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  inspired  Apostles  actually  taught.  Any  one 
who  will  stop  and  think  must  see  that  this  is  not  translation 
at  all,  it  is  distortion,  perversion,  substitution  and  prosti- 
tution. Shailer  Mathews  goes  on  to  say :  "Thus  the  issue 
is  plain.  It  is  not  between  those  who  believe  the  Bible  and 
those  who  disbelieve  it.  It  is  between  ways  of  using  the 
Bible."  This  statement  is  an  absolute  falsehood.  The  issue 
is  exactly  between  those  who  believe  the  Bible,  those  who 
translate  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  into  equivalent  English 
words,  and  believe  what  is  said  by  the  various  Bible  writers, 
and  those  who  throw  overboard  what  the  Bible  says,  sub- 
stituting something  else  for  it,  simply  because  they  disbelieve 
what  the  Bible  says.  If  a  man  should  reason  in  a  court 
of  law  as  Shailer  Mathews  reasons  in  this  passage,  he 
would  be  laughed  out  of  court.  It  is  only  "theologians"  who 
resort  to  such  preposterous  logic.  The  "way  .of  using  the 
Bible"  that  Shailer  Mathews  here  advocates  is  that  of 
setting  the  Bible  and  what  it  says  altogether  aside  and 
substituting  for  its  teachings  what  he  thinks  is  demanded 
by  the  modern  evolutionary  method  of  thought.  Shailer 
Mathews  confesses  that  if  we  are  to  take  the  Bible  at  its 
face  value,  i.e.,  as  we  take  any  other  book  of  the  past  or 
present,  "the  premillenarian  propagandist"  is  "true  to  the 
Bible,"  but  he  tries  to  explain  it  away  by  saying  of  the 
premillenarian  that  "he  is  really  true  to  an  improper  way 
of  using  the  Bible.  His  loyalty  to  the  Bible  amounts  to 
making  OUTGROWN  OR  TEMPORARY  WORDS 
AND  CONCEPTIONS  equally  true  with  what  they 
attempt  to  express."  (p.  9).  To  this  would  say  that 
there  is  no  other  form  of  loyalty  to  the  Bible  or  any  other 
book  than  that  of  taking  the  "words  and  conceptions"  to 
mean  what  they  say,  and  to  call  them,  as  Shailer  Mathews 
plainly  does  in  this  sentence,  "OUTGROWN  OR  TEM- 
PORARY WpRDS  AND  CONCEPTIONS,"  is  to  be  dis- 
loyal to  the  Bible  and  to  pour  contempt  on  the  Bible,  and 
goes  to  show  that  in  spite  of  all  his  twisting  and  turning 
that  Shailer  Mathews  disbelieves  the  Bible  and  desires  to 
substitute  for  what  the  Bible  teaches,  something  entirely 


different  that  he  imagines  evolutionary  philosophy  teaches. 
Shailer  Mathews  ought  to  be  man  enough  to  come  right 
out  and  say  so,  but  he  is  not.  How  anybody  can  be  so 
silly  and  irrational  as  to  be  blinded  by  such  pettifogging 
words  as  these  of  Shailer  Mathews  is  more  than  I  can 
understand,  but  hundreds,  and  probably  thousands  of 
preachers  in  America,  and  many  missionaries  abroad  have 
been  blinded  by  them.  What  Shailer  Mathews  here  calls 
"the  historical  method  of  interpretation/'  in  plain  English 
is  the  infidel  method,  not  a  manly  and  courageous  infidel 
method,  but  a  sneaking  and  cowardly  infidel  method.  By 
any  such  method  of  interpretation  you  can  make  the  Koran, 
or  all  the  morally  rotten  literature  of  India,  reeking  with 
the  most  unmentionable  and  indescribable  vileness,  as  valu- 
able as  the  Bible.  If  Shailer  Mathews  wishes  to  get  rid  of 
the  plain  and  crystal  clear  teaching  of  the  Bible,  as  he 
undoubtedly  does,  why  is  he  not  honest  enough  to  come 
right  out  and  say  so?  Why  does  he  not  come  right  out 
and  say  that  the  Bible  is  a  jumble  of  errors  and  falsehoods? 
The  fundamental  lack  with  Shailer  Mathews  and  his  whole 
school  of  thought  is  a  lack  of  common  intellectual  honesty, 
and  of  a  decent  amount  of  courage.  When  he  refers,  as 
he  unmistakably  does  from  what  he  says  in  the  connection, 
to  the  teachings  of  the  inspired  Apostles  and  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  Himself,  he  never  speaks  of  them  as  the 
teachings  of  the  Apostles  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  speaks 
of  them  over  and  over  again  as  "the  beliefs  of  the  early 
Christians."  He  knew  perfectly  well  that  any  man  or 
woman  who  had  even  a  measurably  decent  amount  of  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Bible,  would  resent  it  if  he  spoke 
so  contemptuously  of  what  were  clearly  set  forth  as  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  Himself  and  of  the  inspired 
Apostles,  so  he  does  not  call  these  teachings  the  teachings  of 
the  Apostles  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  "the  beliefs  of  the 
early  Christians."  This  he  does  over  and  over  again,  and 
then  goes  on  immediately,  time  and  time  again,  to  refer  to 
things  that  either  the  Apostles  or  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
taught,  and  oftentimes  he  refers  to  what  they  both  taught, 
in  ridicule  and  contempt.  His  whole  method  of  argument 
would  be  unworthy  of  a  pettifogging  police  court  lawyer. 

10 


On  page  4  Shailer  Mathew  says :  "Let  us  first  look  at 
the  Scriptual  material."  This  sounds  encouraging,  but  in 
what  follows  not  for  one  moment  does  he  look  at  the 
Scriptural  material  in  any  specific  and  honest  way,  or  with 
any  intention  of  accepting  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures. 
There  is  not  one  explicit  quotation  from  the  Scriptures  in 
the  entire  book.  The  whole  attempt  of  the  booklet  is  to 
turn  the  reader's  attention  away  from  the  things  that  the 
Bible  explicitly  says.  There  are  undoubted  allusions  to  the 
Scriptures,  but  Dr.  Mathews  scrupulously  avoids  quoting 
the  Scriptures,  and  some  of  his  allusions  are  gross  cari- 
catures. In  one  of  his  allusions  given  in  direct  connection 
with  his  words :  "Let  us  first  look  at  the  Scripture  mater- 
ial," in  fact  the  words  immediately  following,  he  says,  "The 
early  Christians  believed  that  Jesus  would  return  during 
the  lifetime  of  their  generation.  This  hope  is  on  almost 
every  page  in  the  Nezv  Testament."  Any  one  who  is  at 
all  familiar  with  the  New  Testament  knows  that  this  state- 
ment is  one  of  the  wildest  and  most  reckless  assertions 
ever  written  by  a  supposedly  serious  minded  man.  How 
any  man  who  hoped  to  retain  the  confidence  of  his  readers 
could  have  allowed  himself  to  be  betrayed  into  such  a  wild 
and  reckless  statement  it  is  difficult  to  understand.  There 
are  285  pages  in  the  copy  of  the  New  Testament  which  I 
now  hold  in  my  hand.  Does  any  one  believe  for  a  moment 
that  there  are  285  places  that  indicate,  or  suggest,  or  hint 
that  "the  early  Christians  believed  that  Jesus  would  return 
during  the  lifetime  of  their  generation?"  Such  a  hope  so 
far  from  being  found  285  times  in  the  New  Testament  is 
not  found  one  hundred  times,  nor  ten  times,  nor  is  there 
even  one  single  instance  in  which  it  is  asserted  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  zvould  return  during  the  lifetime  of  the  gener- 
ation then  living.  It  is  true  that  there  are  a  few  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  which  some  commentators  have  held 
taught  that  Jesus  Christ  would  return  during  the  lifetime  of 
that  generation,  the  most  notable  instances,  those  most 
frequently  appealed  to,  being  Matt.  24:34  and  1  Thess. 
4:16.  In  Matt.  24:34  we  are  told  that  our  Lord  said: 
"Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  generation  shall  not  pass 
away,  till  all  these  things  be  accomplished."  This  is  taken 

11 


as  showing  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  taught  that  the  gener- 
ation living  when  He  spoke  would  not  pass  away  until  His 
coming  again  was  accomplished.  But  if  any  one  will  study 
this  passage  in  the  context,  the  only  way  to  study  any 
passage  in  the  Bible,  he  will  discover  that  by  "this  genera- 
tion" our  Lord  did  not  mean  the  generation  living  upon 
the  earth  when  He  was  here,  but  the  generation  living  when 
the  signs  of  which  He  had  just  spoken  came  to  pass.  The 
words  are  immediately  after  the  parable  of  the  fig  tree,  the 
whole  thought  of  w^hich  is  the  rapidity  with  which  Summer 
draws  nigh  after  the  branch  of  the  fig  tree  becomes  tender 
and  it  "putteth  forth  its  leaves,"  and  He  goes  on  to  say  that 
these  signs,  of  which  He  has  spoken  in  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding verses,  are  the  signs  of  the  coming  Summer,  like  the 
fig  tree's  branch  becoming  tender  and  putting  forth  leaves, 
and  that  therefore  when  all  these  signs  are  seen,  empha- 
sizing especially  the  great  tribulation  and  the  darkening  of 
the  sun  that  shall  follow,  then  it  would  be  known  that  the 
Summer  of  His  coming  to  the  earth  is  nigh,  and  that  one 
can  tell  that  before  the  generation  then  living  passes,  all  these 
things  shall  be  accomplished.  The  whole  misapprehension 
of  the  meaning  of  these  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  comes 
from  one  of  the  most  vicious  methods  of  interpretation, 
that  of  ripping  a  verse  out  of  its  context.  It  is  the  same 
thought  to  which  our  Lord  Jesus  gives  voice  in  Luke 
21 :31-33 :  "Even  so  ye  also,  zvhen  ye  see  these  things  coin- 
ing to  pass,  know  ye  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  nigh. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  this  generation  (evidently  the  gen- 
eration then  living  when  they  "see  these  things  coming  to 
pass")  shall  not  pass  away  till  all  things  be  accomplished." 
And  it  is  in  this  immediate  connection  that  He  had  said: 
"When  these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass,  look  up  and  lift 
up  your  heads ;  because  your  redemption  draweth  nigh." 
The  other  passage  most  appealed  to  by  those  who  would 
have  us  think  that  the  early  Christians  taught  that  Jesus 
would  come  during  their  lifetime,  is  1  Thess.  4 :15-17  :  "For 
this  we  say  unto  you  by  the  -word  of  the  Lord,  that  \ve 
that  are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord, 
shall  in  no  wise  precede  them  that  are  fallen  asleep.  For 
the  Lord  Himself  shall  descend  from  heaven,  with  a  shout, 

12 


with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God : 
and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first;  then  we  that  are 
alive,  that  are  left,  shall  together  with  them  be  caught  up 
in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air :  and  so  shall  we 
ever  be  with  the  Lord."  It  is  held  that  here  Paul  taught 
that  he  would  be  alive  when  the  Lord  came,  for  he  says : 
"we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left."  To  this  would  say,  Paul 
does,  of  course,  include  himself  with  those  who  were  then 
alive,  for  he  certainly  had  not  as  yet  died,  and  how  could 
he  by  any  possibility  put  himself  with  those  who  are  already 
dead.  But  he  does  not  for  one  moment  assert  that  he 
would  still  be  alive  at  the  time  that  the  Lord  should  descend 
from  heaven.  He  certainly  was  alive  when  he  wrote.  It 
may  be  that  at  this  period  of  his  life  Paul  hoped  to  be 
alive  when  the  Lord  came,  but  we  are  not  concerned  with 
what  Paul  hoped,  or  even  thought,  but  what  Paul  actually 
taught,  and  he  certainly  does  not  teach  here  nor  anywhere 
else  that  Jesus  would  return  during  his  lifetime.  Neither 
does  the  Lord  Jesus  teach  it  in  any  place,  nor  does  any  other 
New  Testament  writer  so  teach.  The  whole  purpose  of  this 
argument  on  Shailer  Mathews'  part  is,  of  course,  to  discredit 
the  testimony  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  Apostle  Paul  by 
attempting  to  show  that  they  were  mistaken  on  this  point 
of  the  time  of  His  return,  and  therefore  might  be  mistaken 
on  the  whole  question;  but  the  attempt  results  in  utter 
failure.  The  premillenarians  do  not  base  their  view  upon 
what  "the  early  Christians  believed,"  but  upon  what  our 
Lord  Jesus  taught  and  what  "the  holy  men  of  God"  ivho 
were  "moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit"  taught. 

Following  up  this  attempt  to  discredit  the  Scriptures 
and  the  teachings  of  our  Lord,  Shailer  Mathews  says  on  page 
5 :  "It  need  hardly  be  emphasized  that  the  immediateness  of 
these  events,  the  expectation  of  which  was  a  part  of  the  re- 
ligious inheritance  of  the  first  Christians,  was  an  essential 
element  in  their  hope."  This  statement  is  absolutely  false. 
The  possibility  that  the  Lord  Jesus  might  come  soon  for  His 
own  to  take  them  out  of  this  world  before  the  great  tribu- 
lation was  an  element  in  their  hope  in  order  to  keep  them 
watching  and  looking,  but  so  far  from  the  "immediateness" 
of  that  coming  being  an  essential  part  of  their  hope,  there  is 

13 


not  a  word  in  the  Bible,  when  properly  interpreted  with 
regard  to  its  context,  to  show  it.  It  is  true  our  Lord  Jesus 
did,  for  His  own  wise  purpose,  which  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand, withhold  from  the  knowledge  of  His  disciples  all 
information  as  to  the  time  of  His  return.  There  was  good 
reason  for  this,  into  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  at  the 
present  time.  And  as  they  were  not  "to  know  times  or 
seasons,  which  the  Father  hath  set  within  His  own  author- 
ity," (Acts  1 :7)  it  was  natural  that  they  should  expect  that 
Pie  might  come  in  their  own  life,  or  during  the  lifetime  of 
that  generation  of  believers.  But  the  HOLY  SPIRIT  NEVER 

PERMITTED  ONE  SINGLE   NEW   TESTAMENT  WRITER  TO  TEACH 

THAT  HE  WOULD  so  RETURN.  So  this  attempt  of  Shailer 
Mathews  to  discredit  the  New  Testament  falls  utterly  flat. 

That  "the  immediateness  of  these  events"  \vas  not 
"an  essential  element  in  their  hope"  is  further  evident  from 
the  fact  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Himself  spoke  a  parable  for 
the  express  purpose  of  correcting  the  mistaken  idea  that 
His  disciples  held  at  that  time  (which  was  before  Pentecost, 
when  they  were  qualified  to  be  the  infallible  writers  of  books 
of  the  Bible),  that  "the  kingdom  of  God"  should  "imme- 
diately appear."  We  read :  "And  as  they  heard  these 
things,  He  added  and  spake  a  parable,  because  He  was 
nigh  to  Jerusalem,  and  because  they  supposed  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  was  immediately  to  appear.  He  said 
therefore,  a  certain  nobleman  went  into  a  far  country,  to 
receive  for  himself  a  kingdom,  and  to  return."  (Luke 
19:11,  12).  Here  our  Lord  Jesus,  instead  of  urging  the 
immediacy  of  His  coming,  emphasized  the  fact  that  there 
must  be  a  considerable  period  intervening  before  He 
returned.  In  a  similar  way  in  Luke  20 :9  He  says :  "A 
man  planted  a  vineyard,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and 
went  into  another  country  for  a  long  time."  In  other  par- 
ables of  the  kingdom  and  of  His  return  our  Lord  taught 
that  His  coming,  instead  of  being  immediate,  was  to  be 
at  "the  end  of  the  world  (the  word  translated  "world" 
should  be  rendered  "age")"  (Matt.  13:39).  And  in  a 
similar  way  in  the  49th  verse  of  the  same  chapter  He 
teaches  that  the  events  connected  with  His  coming  should 
be,  "in  the  end  of  the  age"  thus  clearly  indicating  that  an 

14 


age  would  intervene  before  His  second  coming.  In  Matt. 
24:4-8  our  Lord  Jesus  tells  of  a  long  series  of  events,  that 
would  take  a  long  time  for  their  development,  and  says 
that  even  when  this  long  series  of  events  takes  place,  "the 
end  is  not  yet!'  In  Matt.  28 :19,  20  and  Acts  1 :6-8  our  Lord 
distinctly  tells  His  disciples  that  they  were  to  go  and  make 
disciples  "of  all  the  nations/'  and  that  they  were  to  be 
witnesses  "unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth"  which 
would  certainly  take  a  long  time,  and  which  shows  con- 
clusively that  Shailer  Mathews'  assertion  that  "immediate- 
ness"  "was  an  essential  element  in  their  hope"  of  the 
return  of  the  Lord,  is  utterly  without  foundation  and 
exactly  contrary  to  the  facts  in  the  case. 

To  show  still  further  the  utter  falsity  of  Shailer 
Mathews'  assertion  that  "immediateness"  "was  an  essential 
element  in  their  hope  (i.e.,  in  the  hope  and  teaching  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles)"  it  is  to  be  carefully  noted  that 
John  tells  us  plainly  that  Jesus  said  to  Peter,  the  leader  of 
the  apostolic  company,  that  he  (i.e.,  the  Lord  Jesus)  would 
not  come  in  the  lifetime  of  Peter,  and  describes  to  Peter 
just  how  he  should  die,  and  furthermore  tells  him  that  his 
death  should  not  come  until  he  was  old,  and  that  conse- 
quently the  Lord's  coming  necessarily  could  not  occur  until 
Peter  had  grown  old  and  died  (John  20:18,  19),  and  further 
still  when  John  knew  that  some  inferred  from  the  words 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  him  that  John  at  least,  would  live 
until  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  John  flatly  told  them 
that  this  was  a  total  misconception  of  the  meaning  of 
Jesus'  words,  and  that  Jesus  had  never  said  nor  implied 
that  His  coming  would  be  even  in  the  lifetime  of  the 
Apostle  John,  though  he  outlived  all  the  rest  of  the  Apostles. 
This  clearly  shows  how  utterly  unfounded,  wild  and  reck- 
less Shailer  Mathews'  statement  that  "the  early  Christians 
believed  that  Jesus  would  return  during  the  lifetime  -of 
their  generation,"  and  that  "this  hope  is  on  almost  every 
page  of  the  New  Testament." 

In  any  event,  if  we  are  to  discredit  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  and  the  Apostles,  as  Shailer  Mathews  so  laboriously 
attempts  to  do  in  this  passage  and  elsewhere,  the  question 
is  not  what  "the  early  Christians"  may  have  "believed" 

15 


or  "hoped"  but  what  did  Christ  and  the  other  authors  of 
the  New  Testament  teaching  actually  teach.  If  it  could  be 
proven  that  the  New  Testament  writers  and  speakers 
hoped  and  believed  that  Christ  would  come  again  during 
their  lifetime,  it  would  not  in  the  least  militate  against  the 
dependability  and  reliability  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  inspired  Apostles,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that 
they  taught  that  Jesus  Christ  would  come  again  during 
their  lifetime.  And  not  only  can  it  not  be  shown  that  they 
taught  that  "on  almost  every  page  in  the  New  Testament/' 
but  it  can  be  shown  that  they  never  taught  it  in  one  single 
instance.  Rash,  wild  and  reckless  statements  cannot  go 
further  to  bolster  up  a  hopeless  cause  than  Shailer  Mathews 
has  gone  in  the  statement  quoted. 

On  page  4,  under  the  same  head  of  looking  "at  the 
Scriptural  material,"  Shailer  Mathews  caricatures  in  the 
following  way  some  of  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Himself  and  the  Apostles.  He  says :  "After  the  end  of 
that  thousand  years  this  group  believed  that  there  would  be 
a  mighty  struggle  between  the  Christ  and  Satan's  forces,  a 
general  resurrection  and  a  judgment,  when  spirits  would 
be  brought  up  from  Sheol,  a  great  cavern  under  the  earth, 
and  taken  up  into  the  sky,  when  they  would  meet  living 
persons  who  had  been  'changed/  The  righteous  would  be 
given  new  bodies,  and  thereafter  would  live  in  eternal  bliss 
while  the  wicked  would  be  sent  back  to  the  abyss  of  fire 
prepared  for  the  devil,  his  angels,  and  the  giants,  there  to 
burn  forever  and  ever/'  There  is  no  need  for  extended 
comment  on  these  words.  We  simply  quote  them  to  show 
the  spirit  and  temper  of  Shailer  Mathews  in  this  whole 
discussion.  It  would  seem  as  if  he  had  been  taking  lessons 
from  Colonel  Ingersol. 

On  page  5  Shailer  Mathews  says:  "The  entire  mes- 
sianic expectation  in  so  far  as  it  dealt  with  the  future  did 
not  originate  with  the  Christians  (Thus  far  the  italics  are 
Shailer  Mathews').  As  Jews  they  inherited  it  from  Judaism. 
To  use  only  one  example :  The  idea  of  the  thousand  years 
comes  from  the  Jewish  literature,  such  as  the  Book  of 
Enoch,  written  after  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  canon. 
.  .  .  A  study  of  the  entire  literature  of  the  Jews  from 

16 


175  B.C.  will  show  where  the  other  elements  of  premil- 
lenarianism  originated."  Of  course,  this  is  an  attempt  to 
discredit  the  premillenarian,  and  in  fact  all  "the  messianic/' 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament  by  attributing  to  it  an 
extra  biblical  Jewish  origin.  Shailer  Mathews  returns  to 
this  same  attempt  on  page  17  where  he  says:  "Pious  Jews 
wrote  a  considerable  number  of  apocalypses  which  appeared 
about  175  B.C.  and  continued  to  be  written  until  approx- 
imately 100  A.D.  These  apocalypses  constitute  a  symboli- 
cal and  allegorical  literature.  Their  figures  of  speech  are 
precisely  those  which  the  early  Christians  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment used.  As  time  went  on  the  tendency  to  literalize  these 
figures  of  speech  became  very  pronounced  as  they  were  used 
by  men  unaccustomed  to  the  methods  of  such  men  as  those 
who  wrote  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  the 
Ascension  of  Isaiah,  and  other  works  of  this  class.  At  last 
men  came  to  take  much  of  this  symbolism  literally.  This 
was  true  of  some  of  the  early  Christians."  Now  this  whole 
implication  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  inspired 
Apostles  (whom  Shailer  Mathews  does  not  specifically 
name,  but  speaks  of  only  as  "some  of  the  early  Christians," 
but  in  his  entire  booklet  his  references  to  the  teachings  which 
he  is  seeking  to  discredit  as  being  of  extra-biblical  Jewish 
origin,  are  suggested  by  the  very  explicit  teachings  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles)  derived  their  teaching  from  Jewish 
apocryphal,  apocalyptic  literature  is  absolutey  false.  Whether 
it  results  from  colossal  ignorance  or  from  an  intentional 
desire  to  misrepresent  we  will  not  say,  though  we  are  loath 
to  suspect  Shailer  Mathews  of  the  latter.  In  any  event 
the  implication  is  absolutely  false  and  totally  contrary  to 
the  facts  in  the  case,  and  if  Shailer  Mathews  had  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  this  apocalyptic  literature  to  which  he  refers, 
and  also  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  and  the  relation  of 
the  New  Testament  teaching  to  the  Old  Testament  prophets, 
and  if  at  the  same  time  he  were  a  thoroughly  honest  man, 
he  would  never  have  indulged  in  any  such  insinuations. 
This  representation  of  the  origin  of  premillennial  teaching 
in  the  New  Testament  is  easily  proven  to  be  untrue.  Some 
things  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  possibly  some  things  in 
some  of  the  other  apocalyptic  writings  (of  which  by  the 

17 


way  there  was  no  such  number  as  Shailer  Mathews  implies) 
may  have  some  similarity  to  some  of  the  things  said  by  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Apostles  in  the  New  Testament 
writings,  but  it  is  very  shallow  reasoning  that  jumps  at 
the  conclusion  that  therefore  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
derived  them  from  the  "apocalypses  which  appeared  from 
about  175  B.C.  and  continued  to  be  within  until  approx- 
imately 100  A.D."  The  very  evident  explanation  of  any 
similarities  that  may  be  discovered  is  that  the  zvriters  of 
these  apocalypses  were  themselves  saturated  with  Old 
Testament  conceptions  and  phraseology  (The  International 
Standard  Bible  Encyclopedia,  the  most  reliable  book  of 
the  character  that  there  is,  on  page  164,  speaking  of  these 
apocalyptic  writings  to  which  Shailer  Mathews  refers,  says : 
"All  these  take  the  Book  of  Daniel  as  their  model"},  and 
Christ  and  the  Apostles  were  also  saturated  with  Old  Testa- 
ment conceptions  and  phraseology,  and,  therefore,  neces- 
sarily there  wrere  some  similarities  of  conception  and 
phraseology  between  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  the  Apos- 
tles and  those  of  these  apocalyptic  writings.  Let  any  one 
take  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  and  the  Book  of  Revela- 
tion and  other  New  Testament  prophecies,  and  consult  a 
good  book  of  Old  Testament  references  (for  example,  The 
Treasury  of  Scripture  Knowledge),  and  they  will  soon 
discover  that  a  very  large  part  of  what  Jesus  said,  and 
what  the  Apostles  wrote,  and  especially  of  what  is  con- 
tained in,  the  Revelation,  is  either  verbal  quotation  from 
or  clear  allusion  to  Old  Testament  prophetic  statements  (tor 
example,  cf.  Ezekiel,  chapter  1  with  Revelation,  chapters 
4  and  5;  Ezekiel  3:3  with  Revelation  10:10;  Ezekiel  8:3 
with  Revelation  13:14,  15;  Ezekiel,  chapter  9  with  Revela- 
tion, chapter  7;  Ezekiel,  chapter  10  with  Revelation  8:1-5). 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Apostles  were  undeniably  saturated 
with  the  conceptions  and  phraseology  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets,  and  their  teachings  were  in  a  large  measure 
derived  from,  or  at  least  built  upon,  their  teachings. 
But  not  in  one  single  instance  were  their  teachings  built 
upon  the  teaching  of  the  extra-biblical  apocalyptic  writers 
to  whom  Shailer  Mathews  attributes  them.  Shailer 
Mathews'  assertion  is  not  only  absolutely  false,  but  betrays 

1*8 


a  gross  ignorance  of  Old  Testament  teaching.  We  cordially 
admit  that  much  of  the  "messianic  expectation  in  so  far  as 
it  dealt  with  the  future  did  not  originate  with  the  Chris- 
tians," but  on  the  other  hand  it  certainly  did  not  originate, 
as  Shailer  Mathews  slanderously  affirms  it  did,  with  the 
Jewish  apocalyptic  literature  that  appeared  from  175  B.  C. 
to  10,0  A.D.  It  originated  with  those  men  who  "spake 
from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  (2  Pet.  1 :21), 
the  Old  Testament  prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  and  others.  That  is  to  say,  it  originated  with  God, 
the  Holy  Ghost.  In  this  sense  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  in  regard  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ, 
is  of  Jewish  origni,  i.e.,  it  came  from  the  Jewish  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  which  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God. 
But  is  that  anything  against  it?  As  we  have  just  seen 
these  "Jewish  ideas"  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God  (see 
2  Pet.  1:21;  2  Tim.  3:16,  17).  JESUS  CHRIST  HIMSELF 
WAS  "OF  JEWISH  ORIGIN/'  Shall  we  therefore  give  Him 
up  and  accept  Shailer  Mathews,  who  is  of  good  old  New 
England  stock,  and  has  studied  in  one  American  College 
(Colby),  and  one  American  Theological  Institute  (New- 
ton), and  one  German  University  (Berlin),  in  His  place? 
Yes,  in  this  sense  the  premillennial  doctrine  is  of  Jewish 
origin,  and  by  the  word  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself, 
"SALVATION  is  OF  THE  JEWS"  (Greek,  "out  of  the  Jews"), 
i.e.,  of  Jewish  origin  (John  4:22). 

Shailer  Mathews,  in  his  determined  attempt  to  dis- 
credit the  teachings  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Inspired  Apostles,  says  on  page  6:  "The  premillenarian 
says  that  these  beliefs  (i.e.,  as  appears  from  the  next  sent- 
ence, "the  belief  of  the  early  Christians")  are  to  be  used  as 
infallible  teaching.  Whatever  the  New  Testament  records 
as  having  been  the  belief  of  early  Christians  he  regards  as 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible."  This  statement  also  is  abso- 
lutely false.  We  challenge  Shailer  Mathews  to  show  any 
place  in  which  a  reputable  premillenarian  says  or  suggests 
that  "Whatever  the  New  Testament  records  as  having  been 
the  belief  of  early  Christians"  be  regarded  as  infallible 
teaching,  or  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  WHAT  THE  PRE- 
MILLENARIANS  SAY  is,  not  that,  "whatever  the  New  Testa- 

19 


ment  records  as  having  been  the  belief  of  early  Christians'' 
but  WHAT"  JESUS  CHRIST  HIMSELF  TEACHES,  AND  WHAT 

THE  APOSTLES  INSPIRED  OF  GOD,  AS  PAUL,  JOHN,  PETER, 
ETC.,  TEACH,  IS  TO  BE  REGARDED  "AS  INFALLIBLE  TEACH- 
ING/' AND  "AS  THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  BlBLE."  //  what 

the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  teaches  and  what  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  were  inspired  to  teach  (not  what 
they  recorded  "as  having  been  the  belief  of  early 
Christians")  is  not  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  what  is  the 
teaching  of  the  Bible?  Shailer  Mathews  continues :  "This 
logically  ought  to  include  belief  in  a  flat  earth,  the  perpetua- 
tion of  slavery,  the  submission  to  rulers  like  Nero.  Pre- 
millenarians  are  inconsistent  when  they  do  not,  as  Christians 
not  long  ago  did,  insist  on  these  elements  of  New  Testa- 
ment beliefs."  May  we  ask  where  in  the  New  Testament 
are  we  taught  to  "believe  in  a  flat  earth  ?"  Where  does  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  Peter,  or  Paul,  or  John,  or  any  New 
Testament  writer  teach  that  the  earth  is  flat?  We  might 
ask,  where  do  they  even  record  that  early  Christians  taught 
that  the  earth  was  flat?  Where  does  Jesus  Christ,  or  Peter, 
Paul,  or  John,  or  any  New  Testament  writer  teach  "the 
perpetuation  of  slavery?"  The  Apostle  Paul  did  teach  that 
the  Christian  should  "be  in  subjection  to  the  higher  powers/' 
and  premillenarians  teach  that  too,  and  why  shouldn't  they  ? 
Would  Shailer  Mathews  have  Christians  teach  Bolshe- 
vism? Why  should  premillenarians,  in  order  to  be  con- 
sistent, "insist"  on  these  (as  Shailer  Mathews  characterizes 
them)  "elements  of  New  Testament  beliefs"  when  they  are 
not  "elements  of  New  Testament  beliefs?"  He  goes  on 
to  say:  "They  (i.e.,  premillenarians)  have  to  resort  to  all 
sorts  of  ingenious  and  unwarranted  interpretations  of  the 
texts  to  justify  this  misuse  of  scripture."  This  also  is 
beyond  a  question  a  falsehood.  If  there  is  any  one  who 
"resorts  to  ingenious  and  unwarranted  interpretations  of 
the  texts  to  justify  their  misuse  of  Scripture"  it  is  not  the 
premillenarians,  but  the  postmillenariians.  Of  this  fact 
Shailer  Mathews  himself  is  a  striking  illustration  in  this 
very  pamphlet  in  which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  he  is  so 
convinced  that  his  views  cannot  be  maintained  by  taking 
the  Scriptures  at  their  face  value  and  in  their  evident  mean- 

20 


ing,  that  he  says  in  so  many  words  that  'The  conception? 
of  these  ancient  men  of  God  have  to  be  translated  into 
modern  conceptions."  That  is  to  say,  that  for  what  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Apostles  say,  something  else  must 
be  substituted  which  is  just  the  opposite  of  what  they  say. 
Can  "ingenious  and  unwarranted  interpretation  of  texts" 
go  beyond  that?  Shailer  Mathews  concludes  this  para- 
graph by  saying:  'Their  (i.e.,  the  premillenarians')  method 
is  more  irresponsible  than  that  which  tries  to  prove  that 
Bacon  wrote  the  plays  of  Shakespeare."  This  statement 
also  is  a  falsehood,  so  palpably  false  that  about  all  one 
needs  to  do  is  to  quote  it.  It  is  not  the  premillennial  school 
of  literary  critics  and  interpreters  who  are  trying  to  prove 
by  methods  "more  irresponsible  than  that  which  tries  to 
prove  that  Bacon  wrote  the  plays  of  Shakespeare"  that  the 
books  of  the  Bible  were  not  written  by  the  men  whose 
names  they  have  borne  for  so  many  centuries,  but  the  very 
school  of  which  Shailer  Mathews  is  a  leading  advocate. 
We  do  not  recall  ever  having  read  a  book,  even  by  the 
bitterest  infidel,  that  was  more  evidently,  egregiously,  delib- 
erately, intentionally  unfair  than  this  booklet  of  Shailer 
Mathews.  Of  this  fact  we  have  sufficient  evidence  in  the 
sentences  just  quoted.  Let  us  add  before  passing  on  that 
the  New  Testament  does  not  merely  record  "the  concep- 
tions of  early  Christians,"  it  is  an  entirely  reliable  record 
of  what  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  taught  and  what  "was  con- 
firmed unto  us  by  them  that  heard  (i.e.,  the  Apostles)  ;  God 
also  bearing  witness  with  them,  both  by  signs  and  wonders, 
and  by  manifold  powers,  arid  by  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
according  to  His  own  will"  (Heb.  2:3,  4).  In  the  New 
Testament  God  has  given  us  as  a  foundation  for  our  faith 
and  practice,  the  teaching  of  His  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Apostles,  to  whom  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
Himself  said :  "These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you, 
while  yet  abiding  with  you.  .But  the  Comforter,  even  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  He 
shall  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  that  I  said  unto  you" 
(John  14:25,  26).  And  again:  "I  have  yet  many  things 
to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.  Howbeit 
when  He,  the  Spirit  of  Truth  is  come,  He  shall  guide  you 

21 


into  all  the  truth :  for  He  shall  not  speak  from  Himself ; 
but  what  things  soever  ye  shall  hear,  these  shall  He  speak : 
and  He  shall  declare  unto  you  the  things  that  are  to  come" 
Now  which  shall  we  accept,  those  things  which  that  person 
whom  God  accredited  to  be  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  who 
spake  the  very  words  of  God,  by  raising  Him  from  the 
dead,  taught,  and  which  the  Apostles,  who  the  same  Lord 
Jesus  said  would  be  guided  into  all  the  truth  by  the  Spirit 
of  truth,  Who  should  declare  unto  them  things  to  come, 
taught,  or  what  Shailer  Mathews  is  very  confident  is  the 
assured  result  of  modern  scientific  investigation  and  philo- 
sophical speculation?  These  recorded  utterances  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  found  in  the  New  Testament  are  given 
to  us  by  thoroughly  competent  witnesses,  who  had  a  right 
to  claim,  as  one  of  them  does  claim  in  so  many  words,  that 
they  had  "traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from 
the  first,"  and  wrote  the  things  that  they  had  traced  in 
order  that  those  who  read  the  record  "might  know  the 
certainty  concerning  the  things  wherein  they  were 
instructed"  (Luke  1 :3,  4),  and  the  accuracy  of  whose  recol- 
lection Jesus  Christ  Himself  guaranteed  by  saying:  "The 
Comforter,  even  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will 
send  in  my  name,  He  shall  teach  you  all  things  and  bring 
to  your  remembrance  all  that  I  said  unto  you." 

On  Page  7  Shailer  Mathews  throws  out  this  challenge, 
which  is  another  startling  illustration  of  his  ignorance  of 
premillenarian  literature :  he  says :  "We  challenge  any  pre- 
millenarian  to  name  the  day  (i.e.,  the  day  of  our  Lord's 
return),  and  then  shall  wait  until  that  day,  confident  that 
he  is  mistaken."  Of  course,  no  intelligent  premillenarian 
will  attempt  "to  name  the  day ;"  for  premillenarians  stoutly, 
as  stoutly  as  any  postmillennarian,  affirm  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  in  the  strictest  and  sternest  terms  forbidden 
us  to  even  try  to  discover  the  exact  date  of  His  return, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  said :  "It  is  not  for  you  to 
know  times  or  seasons,  which  the  Father  hath  set  within 
His  own  authority"  No  one  contends  more  earnestly 
against  this  whole  folly  of  date  setting  than  the  leading 
premillenarians.  The  writer  of  the  present  tract  has  said, 
repeatedly  in  public  address  and  on  printed  page  that  any 

22 


attempt  to  set  a  date  for  the  return  of  our  Lord,  or  any 
event  connected  therewith  is  most  daring  presumption  and 
an  act  of  gross  disobedience  to  the  revealed  will  of  God. 
In  his  book,  "What  the  Bible  Teaches,"  published  in  1898 
he  says :  "The  exact  time  of  the  Coming  Again  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  revealed  to  us."  "Calculations  from  the  data 
given  in  Daniel  by  which  some  try  to  fix  the  exact  date  of 
Christ's  return  are  utterly  unreliable.  They  attempt  the 
impossible.  The  statements  were  not  intended  to  give  us 
a  clue  to  the  exact  date  of  Christ's  return.  It  is  part  of 
God's  purpose  and  method  in  dealing  with  men  to  keep 
them  in  uncertainty  on  this  point."  "Any  teacher,  who 
attempts  to  fix  the  date  of  Christ's  return  is  at  once  dis- 
credited, and  it  is  entirely  unnecessary  to  wade  through 
his  calculations.  God  does  not  desire  us  to  know  just  when 
His  Son  shall  return."  (What  the  Bible  Teaches,  pages 
216,217).  This  attempt  on  Shailer  Mathews'  part  to  iden- 
tify premillenarianism  with  date  setting  is  another  illustra- 
tion of  the  gross,  egregious,  deliberate  and  outrageous 
unfairness  of  Shailer  Mathews  in  his  discussion  of  the 
whole  subject. 

On  page  10  Shailer  Mathews  says:  "Premillenarians 
miss  the  spirit  in  emphasizing  the  letter.  In  making  a 
mistaken  Judaistic  belief  central  they  distort  Christianity. 
This  distortion  is  characterized  by  four  chief  elements. 
First,  the  premillenarian  interpretation  of  the  gospel  denies 
that  God  is  capable  of  bringing  about  His  victory  by  spir- 
itual means."  This  is  one  of  the  main  points,  if  not  the 
main  point  in  Shailer  Mathews'  whole  attack  upon  premil- 
lenarianism. At  the  first  glance,  to  the  superficial  thinker, 
there  may  seem  to  be  something  in  this  argument  of  Shailer 
Mathews,  but  if  any  one  of  average  intelligence  and  ability 
and  historical  knowledge  will  stop  to  reflect  upon  it  he  will 
see  that  it  is  arrant  nonsense.  We  know  from  history  and 
experience  as  well  as  from  the  Bible,  that  God  has  always 
used  material  means,  "force"  if  you  please,  "to  bring  about 
His  victory,"  the  victory  of  righteousness.  How  is  God 
teaching  the  Kaiser  and  the  Germans  (and  through  them 
all  who  would  cultivate  a  spirit  of  damnable  and  murderous 
self-aggrandizement),  a  sorely  needed  lesson?  Is  it  "by 

23 


(purely)  spiritual  means  ?"  Is  it  not  by  "force,"  the  mili- 
tary forces  of  America  and  our  allies  ?  And  by  so 
doing  it  is  God  "reverting  to  physical  brutality  ?"  Shailer 
Mathews  or  any  one  else  who  asserts  it,  or  implies  it,  is  a 
blasphemer.  That  is  plain  and  severe  speech,  but  it  is  an 
inescapable  fact.  To  be  consistent  Shailer  Mathews  should 
be  an  extreme  pacifist  and  demand  that  America  should 
recall  her  soldiers,  destroy  her  guns  and  ammunition  and 
bring  the  Germans  to  repentance  and  to  a  just  and  humane 
treatment  of  weaker  nations  and  outraged  women  and 
children  "by  spiritual  means/'  Why  has  Shailer  Mathews, 
if  he  believes  what  he  here  implies,  accepted  for  1917-1918 
the  position  of  "State  Secretary  for  War  Savings  for 
Illinois?"  Why  has  he  left  the  purely  "spiritual  means" 
of  teaching  for  collecting  money  to  arm,  eqtiip  and  sustain 
our  "brutal"  forces  in  the  field  to  bringfthe  Kaiser  and 
Germany  to  their  senses.  Fortunately  Shailer  Mathews 
does  not  himself  believe  a  word  of  the  nonsense  which  he 
writes,  and  makes  the  very  central  argument  of  his 
pamphlet  in  order  to  bolster  up  a  bad  cause.  As  a  matter 
of  historical  fact  is  not  God  carrying  out  the  purposes  of 
His  love,  and  has  He  not  carried  them  out  through  all  the 
history  of  mankind,  by  the  intelligent  and  loving  use  of 
"force?"  If  Shailer  Mathews'  words  were  carried  out  to 
their  logical  conclusion  they  would  mean  that  we  must  dis- 
pense with  all  use  of  force  to  punish  offenders  against  right- 
eousness. He  calls  God's  resorting  to  force  to  bring  about 
His  loving  purposes,  "physical  brutality,"  his  exact  words 
are:  "In  order  to  succeed  he  has  to  revert  to  physical 
brutality."  And  he  goes  on  to  say  that  by  reverting  to 
force  God  "abandons  morality  and  uses  miraculous  mili- 
tarism. He  turns  to  fire  and  destructive  forces  of  imper- 
sonal nature."  These  are  not  only  irrational  words,  they 
are  blasphemous  words  in  the  light  of  history  as  well  as  in 
the  light  of  the  teaching  of  God's  Word.  Shailer  Mathews' 
argument  furthermore,  if  there  were  anything  in  it,  would 
make  it  a  confession  of  defeat  on  God's  part  to  even  punish 
sin  by  physical  force,  by  any  use  of  the  "destructive  forces 
of  impersonal  nature"  to  bring  man  to  his  senses.  Shailer 
Mathews'  argument  carried  to  its  logical  issue  would  under- 

24 


mine  not  merely  the  Bible  doctrine  of  premillenarianism 
but  the  entire  Bible  doctrine  of  future  retribution,  or 
any  doctrine  of  retribution.  To  use  Shailer  Mathews' 
own  words,  to  use  the  "destructive  forces  of  impersonal 
nature"  to  punish  sin  would  be  to  "abandon  morality  and 
use  miraculous  militarism."  To  so  reason  at  the  present 
time  would  be  very  effective  pro-German  propaganda  and 
it  would  be  at  any  time  sheerest  tomfoolery.  Without  even 
reverting  at  all  to  the  doctrine  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Himself 
clearly  teaches  about  how  God  will  punish  sin  in  the  here- 
after, we  all  know  God  does  use  every  day  "destructive 
forces  of  impersonal  nature/'  physical  disease  and  pain, 
"to  punish  sin/'  and  any  one  who  accuses  God  of  "abandon- 
ing morality"  in  doing  this  may  be  a  theological  professor, 
but  he  is  also  a  rank  blasphemer.  In  this  very  connection 
Shailer  Mathews  deliberately  caricatures,  not  merely  pre- 
millennialism,  but  explicit  Bible  teaching  to  hold  it  up  to 
contempt.  He  says:  "He  (i.e.,  God)  turns  to  fire  and 
destructive  forces  of  impersonal  nature.  Certain  persons 
will  be  rescued  and  taken  up  into  the  sky,  but  the  earth  is 
to  be  set  on  fire,  the  people  left  on  it  are  to  be  killed,  and 
after  this  the  saints  are  to  reign.  Thus  force  is  the  final 
method  by  which  God  reigns."  It  is  hardly  necessary  for 
the  help  of  any  one  who  has  any  considerable  knowledge 
of  the  Bible,  to  say  that  these  sneers  are  evidently  aimed  at 
very  explicit  teachings  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Apostle  Paul  and  others  which  are  here  caricatured  in  a 
way  they  would  be  worthy  of  Colonel  Ingersol,  or  any  of 
the  grosser  type  of  infidel  scoffers. 

On  page  11  Shailer  Mathews  says:  "Many  premil- 
lenarians  therefore  thank  God  that  the  world  is  growing 
worse."  This  statement  is  an  evident  falsehood  ana  a 
gross  slander.  It  is  true  that  intelligent  premillenarians, 
when  they  see  the  triumph  of  iniquity  that  has  been  so 
apparent  in  the  past  four  years,  are  not  thrown  into  the 
abyss  of  utter  despair  and  pessimism  that  many  postmil- 
lenarians  were  thrown  into.  It  is  true  that  in  these  things 
they  saw  the  things  predicted  as  preceding  the  return  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore,  instead  of  being  dis- 
heartened when  they  saw,  "upon  the  earth  distress  of 

25 


nations,  in  perplexity  for  the  roaring  of  the  sea  and  the 
billows ;  men  fainting  for  fear,  and  for  expectation  of  the 
things  that  are  coming  on  the  world/'  they  do  just  what  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  bade  us  do  under  such  circumstances, 
viz.,  "Lift  up  our  heads;  because  our  redemption  draweth 
nigh.''  They  do  not  rejoice  in  these  things;  they  see  and 
feel  the  horror  of  them ;  they  do  what  they  can  to  alleviate 
them,  but  they  are  not  discouraged  by  them,  because  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  predicted  these  things,  and  their 
coming  to  pass  is  simply  an  additional  guarantee  of  the 
absolute  truthfulness  of  the  Word  of  God.  Furthermore, 
in  the  increasing  darkness  of  the  night  they  see  the  indica- 
tion that  the  glorious  day  is  at  hand.  Shailer  Mathews  asks 
in  the  sentence  following  the  one  just  quoted:  ''What  is 
this  but  joy  in  the  spiritual  defeat  of  God?"  The  premil- 
lenarian's  joy  is  not  ujoy  in  the  spiritual  defeat  of  God," 
but  it  is  joy  in  the  absolute  certainty  of  God's  Word  and  in 
the  confirmation  of  Jesus  Christ's  own  claim  made  in  con- 
nection with  His  predictions  regarding  His  own  second 
coming,  that  though  "heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  my 
word  shall  not  pass  away"  (Matt.  24:35),  and  joy  in  the 
indication  of  the  soon  coming  of  the  complete  triumph  of 
God  in  that  glorious  day  when  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Him- 
self shall  return  according  to  His  own  proniise,  and  set 
straight  the  things  which  men  in  their  pride  and  sin  have 
made  crooked.  Shailer  Mathews  goes  on  to  say :  "This 
sort  of  pessimism  is  unworthy  of  a  Christian  man."  This 
is  simply  bringing  forward  again  the  oft  repeated  charge  of 
pessimism  against  premillenarians,  but  premillenarians,  so 
far  from  being  pessimists  are  optimists  of  the  optimists. 
Even  when  the  days  grow  darkest,  as  Shailer  Mathews  him- 
self has  just  suggested,  their  hearts  remain  light,  for  they 
know  from  the  promises  of  God's  Word  regarding  the  sec- 
ond coming  of  Christ,  that  the  darker  the  night  gets  the 
nearer  at  hand  the  day  is.  The  premillenarian  is  an  opti- 
mist not  by  deliberately  shutting  his  eyes  to  the  undeniable 
facts  of  the  present  day  confusion  in  politics,  commercial 
life,  social  life,  and  national  life  and  international  relations, 
he  is  an  optimist  because  he  is  open-eyed  to  the  glorious* 
promises  of  God's  Word,  that  all  these  things  are  simply 

26 


precursors  of  by  far  the  brightest  day  in  all  this  world's 
history. 

Shailer    Mathews'    second    argument    against    premillen- 
arianism  is : 

2.  "Such  a  use  of  the  Scripture  (the  premillenarians' 
use  of  Scripture)  leads  to  the  denial  of  the  application  of 
the  gospel  to  social  forces!'  This  statement  is  another 
false  accusation.  We  would  like  to  know  whether  Shailer 
Mathews  or  any  other  postmillenarian  has  done  more 
in  modern  times  to  apply  the  gospel  to  social  forces  than 
for  example,  D.  L.  Moody,  who  was  an  avowed  and  con- 
sistent premillenarian,  or  Billy  Sunday,  who  in  all  his  meet- 
ings in  recent  years  has  preached  at  least  one  sermon  of 
the  most  ultra-premillennial  type.  It  would  be  easy  to  men- 
tion many  other  prominent  premillenarians  who  have 
accomplished  great  things  in  the  "application  of  the  gospel 
to  social  forces."  It  is  true  that  premillenarians  do  not 
indulge  in  the  vain  hope  of  gospelizing  social  organizations 
without  regenerating  the  individual.  It  is  true  that  the 
premillenarian  as  a  rule  seeks  to  reach  social  forces  through 
reaching  individuals  with  the  saving  truth  of  the  gospel 
which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  taught,  but  to  assert  that  the 
premillenarian  denies  the  application  of  the  gospel  to  social 
forces  is  to  shut  ones  eyes  to  what  premillenarians  in  this 
and  all  other  lands  are  doing  for  true  and  permanent  social 
uplift.  But  premillenarians  are  not  guilty  of  the  folly  of 
attempting  to  "regenerate  the  institutions  of  humanity  and 
the  forces  that  are  making  history"  in  any  other  way  than 
by  the  regeneration  of  the  individuals  who  "embody  these 
social  forces." 

On  page  12  Shailer  Mathews  says:  "The  hope  of  the 
coming  of  the  Christ  is  not  for  a  moral  renewal  but  for  the 
triumph  of  physical  force."  Is  this  an  illustration  of  Shailer 
Mathews'  gross  ignorance  of  premillennial  teaching,  or 
is  it  an  illustration  of  his  deliberate  misrepresentation  ?  We 
confess  we  do  not  know,  but  anybody  who  is  familiar  with 
premillennial  literature  knows  that  in  their  teaching  "the 
hope  of  the  coming  of  the  Christ"  is  to  the  end  of  the  most 
wonderful  and  thorough  going  "moral  renewal"  that  the 
world  has  ever  seen.  In  proof  of  this  may  the  writer  be 

27 


pardoned  for  referring  any  reader  to  his  own  book  on  "The 
Return  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  especially  that  part  of  the  book 
that  has  to  do  with  the  Results  of  the  Return  of  the  Lord 
Jesus. 

Another  charge  Shailer  Mathews  brings  against  pre- 
millenarians  is : 

"Fourth,  premillenarians  deny  that  Christianity  is  con- 
sistent with  the  findings  of  modern  science  particularly  as 
regards  evolution!3  Shailer  Mathews  here  reveals  one  of 
the  great  reasons  why  he  is  so  extremely  bitter  against 
premillenarians,  and  so  anxious,  by  any  kind  of  misrepre- 
sentation, to  discredit  them,  viz.,  because  he  is  obsessed  by 
the  idea  that  that  form  of  evolutionary  hypothesis  which 
he  holds  is  the  sum  of  all  wisdom,  and  at  the  same  time  is 
inconsistent  with  premillennial  teaching.  It  needs  only 
to  be  said  that  the  form  of  evolutionary  hypothesis  that 
Shailer  Mathews  apparently  holds  is  not  "a  finding  of 
modern  science."  The  evolutionary  hypothesis  that  evi- 
dently from  this  pamphlet  is  held  by  Shailer  Mathews  is 
not  a  finding  of  modern  science,  it  is  speculative  philosophy 
and  not  in  any  proper  use  of  the  word  "science."  Shailer 
Mathews,  in  the  following  sentence,  goes  on  to  say :  "Many 
of  these  denials  show  that  the  writers  know  nothing  about 
evolution  or  the  world  of  science."  One  wonders  as  he 
reads  what  Shailer  Mathews  says,  whether  he  really  has  any 
knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  that  is  held  today 
by  many  of  the  leading  scientists  as  distinguished  from  the 
discredited  and  disproven  and  therefore  rejected  doctrine 
of  evolution  that  was  quite  widely  held  by  scientists 
twenty  years  ago.  Shailer  Mathews  continues:  "Such  an 
attack  upon  modern  science  is  demanded  by  the  central 
principle  of  premillenarianism."  It  is  enough  to  answer 
that  some  premillenarians  undoubtedly  do  attack  what  many 
of  Shailer  Mathews'  school  are  pleased  to  call  "modern 
science,"  but  what  is  not  in  any  right  use  of  the  word 
"science"  at  all,  but  various  hypotheses  that  have  not  one 
single  scientifically  observed  fact  upon  which  to  build  as 
upon  a  solid  foundation,  and  certainly  no  attack  upon  what 
is  really  "science"  is  demanded  by  the  central  principle,  or 

28 


any  other  principle,  of  premillenarianism.     This  is  simply 
unfounded  assertion  on  Shailer  Mathews'  part. 

If  it  could  be  shown  that  it  is  impossible  to  hold  any 
view  that  is  clearly  taught  in  the  New  Testament  and  at  the 
same  time  hold  any  theory  of  evolution,  it  would  not  take 
the  writer  of  the  present  tract  long  to  decide  whether  to 
abide  by  the  teachings  of  a  book  regarding  which  he  has 
unanswerable  proof  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God  (see  writers 
book,  "The  Bible  and  Its  Christ"),  or  to  accept  a  scientific 
hypothesis  which  no  careful  and  accurate  and  really  scien- 
tific thinker  claims  is  proven.  All  really  scientific  writers, 
even  though  they  are  ardent  evolutionists,  admit,  just  as 
Thomas  Huxley,  one  of  the  most  enthusiastic  evolutionists 
that  the  scientific  world  has  ever  produced,  admitted,  that 
the  evolutionary  hypothesis  is  and  "always  must  remain" 
at  best  "only  hypothesis."  But  the  Bible  has  been  proven 
to  be  the  Word  of  God,  so  we  would  stand  by  the  Bible, 
even  if  we  had  to  give  up  "evolution"  in  any  and  every  form 
in  order  to  do  it.  The  trouble  is  that  Shailer  Mathews, 
like  many  other  theologians,  who  as  a  rule  actually  know 
very  little  about  modern  science,  is  obsessed  by  the  evolu- 
tionary hypothesis  and  makes  that  the  test  of  every  doctrine, 
scientific,  philosophcial,  theological,  or  literary.  Of  course, 
this  is  an  utter  desertion  of  the  modern  scientific  method, 
and  a  reversion  to  the  old  a  priori  method  of  reasoning  of 
the  dark  ages  before  Bacon.  Along  the  same  line  Shailer 
Mathews  says  that  premillenarianism  "makes  a  cleavage 
between  what  the  premillenarian  regards  as  the  Christian 
religion  and  real  culture.  Men  must  choose  between  that 
Christianity  and  science."  But  premillenarianism  makes 
no  cleavage  between  the  "Christian  religion  and  real  cul- 
ture." What  Shailer  Mathews  calls  "real  culture"  is  not 
real  culture  at  all,  it  is  a  very  false  and  ignorant  and  only 
so-called  "culture,"  very  like  the  Kultur  that  Shailer 
Mathews  imbibed  when  he  was  a  student  at  the  University 
of  Berlin.  Men  do  not  have  to  choose  between  the 
form  of  Christianity  represented  by  those  who  maintain 
that  the  Bible,  like  any  other  book,  should  be  taken  at  its 
face  value,  "and  science."  The  choice  is  between  an  honest, 
frank,  open  Christianity  and  what  pretends  to  be  "science/1 

29 


but  in  reality  is  utterly  out  of  harmony  with  modern  scien- 
tific methods.  It  is  amusing  to  see  the  way  in  which  the 
postmillenarians,  like  the  destructive  critics,  quietly  assume 
.  that  all  the  scholarship  is  with  themselves.  Of  course,  the 
claim  is  utterly  false  and  results  either  from  gross  ignorance 
or  deliberate  lying,  sometimes  from  one,  sometimes  from 
the  other. 

On  page  18  Shailer  Mathews  says :  "A  comparison  of 
the  gospels  shows  that  they  even  read  back  some  of  these 
forms  of  expression  (i.e.,  the  forms  of  expression  drawn 
from  the  Jewish  apocalyptic  literature  from  175  B.C.  on) 
into  the  sayings  of  Jesus  Himself."  This  statement  is  an 
absolute  falsehood.  "A  comparison  of  the  gospels"  shows 
nothing  of  the  kind.  Any  one  who  will  take  the  four 
gospels  and  study  them  and  compare  them  with  an  unbiased 
mind,  without  prejudice  for  or  against  their  truthfulness, 
will  be  forced  to  acknowledge  that  the  life  here  recorded 
was  a  life  actually  lived  here  upon  earth,  and  not  a  mere 
romance,  and  will  also  be  forced  to  admit  that  the  utter- 
ances here  attributed  to  Jesus  could  not  have  been  devised 
by  others  and  put  into  His  mouth.  The  attempt  which 
has  been  carried  on  so  persistently  from  the  time  that  David 
Strauss  published  his  Leben  Jesu  in  1833  to  the  present 
time,  to  reconstruct  the  life  of  Jesus  and  leave  out  the 
miraculous  element  and  to  eliminate  that  part  of  His  teach- 
ings which  the  writers  did  not  wish  to  accept  and  keep  that 
part  which  they  did  wish  to  accept,  has  resulted  in  total 
collapse  and  failure.  And  any  theory  such  as  Shailer 
Mathews  gives  voice  to  here,  that  the  many  sayings  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  which  clearly  teach  a  personal,  visible  return 
of  the  Lord  and  His  premillennial  return,  were  a  reading 
back  of  ideas  and  forms  of  expression  learned  from  other 
sources  into  the  sayings  of  Jesus  Himself,  if  accepted  would 
discredit  every  saying  of  His  that  is  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament.  If  these  things  that  the  New  Testament  says 
that  Jesus  Christ  taught  were  not  taught  by  Him,  but  simply 
attributed  to  Him,  then  the  other  sayings  attributed  to  Him 
may  not  have  been  uttered  by  Him,  but  merely  attributed  to 
Him,  and  we  are  left  without  the  slightest  idea  of  what 
Jesus  Christ  really  said.  We  have  no  Lord  Jesus  left. 

30 


There  is  no  Christ  but  the  Christ  of  the  Scriptures ;  any 
other  Christ  is  a  mere  figment  of  the  individual  imagina- 
tion. If  we  accept  this  theory  of  Shailer  Mathews  then 
he  and  his  school  of  thought  have  taken  away  our  Lord, 
and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him.  If  Shailer 
Mathews  is  right  in  this  statement,  he  has  cut  out  the  very 
foundations  from  under  his  own  theological  seminary,  or 
any  other  theological  seminary,  and  he  ought  in  all  honesty 
and  self-respect  to  resign  his  position  and  salary  and  find 
some  honest  way  of  making  a  living.  One  hardly  needs 
to  say  that  he  is  not  right  in  this  position,  his  position  is 
absolutely  absurd  and  untenable.  In  the  immediately  fol- 
lowing sentences  to  that  just  quoted  Shailer  Mathews  says: 
"They  thought  as  Jews,  just  as  they  talked  as  Jews."  This 
statement  is  another  falsehood.  They  thought  as  men 
inspired  of  God,  as  men  to  whom  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
Himself  had  said :  "But  the  Comforter,  even  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  He  will 
teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  your  remembrance  all  that 
I  said  unto  you!'  A  thorough  study  of  their  words,  and  a 
comparison  with  the  words  of  all  others  ever  uttered,  and 
a  thorough  study  of  the  words  which  they  attributed  to 
Jesus  will  prove  to  any  man  who  really  wants  to  know  and 
obey  the  truth,  that  they  spoke  the  truth  and  spoke  as  men 
inspired  of  God  and  not  merely  "as  Jews."  In  the  next 
sentence  Shailer  Mathews  says:  "The  important  matter 
is  not  what  they  said  but  what  they  meant  by  what  they 
said."  This  utterance  may  seem  wise,  but  in  reality  it  is 
consummate  foolishness.  The  only  possible  way  of  telling 
what  a  man  meant  by  what  he  said  is  by  what  he  said. 
Thought  is  conveyed  by  words,  and  especially  is  it  true  of 
men  who  had  a  right  to  claim  that  what  they  spoke  they 
spoke  (fnot  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but 
zvhich  the  Spirit  teacheth"  (1  Cor.  2:13).  "They  meant 
by  what  they  said"  just  "what  they  said."  The  former 
promulgators  of  the  position  that  Shailer  Mathews  holds 
contended  that  the  "concept  was  inspired,"  but  the  "words 
were  not  inspired,"  but  Shailer  Mathews  goes  beyond  this 
and  tells  us  that  their  conceptions  were  wrong  as  well  as 
their  words,  and  that  "the  conceptions  (not  merely  the 

31 


words)  of  these  ancient  men  of  God  have  to  be  translated 
into  modern  conceptions  exactly  as  the  Hebrew  or  Greek 
language  has  to  be  translated  into  English."  (P.  9).  Here 
we  find  a  comparatively  mild  form  of  literary  lunacy  grown 
into  stark  literary  madness. 

There  is  no  need  to  pursue  this  criticism  of  Shailer 
Mathews'  widely  circulated  pamphlet  any  further.  We  see 
it  is  a  continuous  mass  of  illogical  arguments,  gross  mis- 
representations, demonstrable  falsehoods,  and  rank  blas- 
phemies. The  pamphlet  itself  is  a  fulfillment  of  the  very 
Scriptures  which  it  seeks  to  discredit.  The  Apostle  Peter, 
inspired  of  God,  foresaw  the  work  of  Shailer  Mathews  and 
his  class,  and  has  plainly  described  him  when  he  says : 
"This  is  now,  beloved,  the  second  epistle  that  I  write  unto 
you;  and  in  both  of  them  I  stir  up  your  sincere  minds  by 
putting  you  in  remembrance ;  that  ye  should  remember  the 
words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets,  and 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  through  your 
Apostles:  knowing  this  first,  that  in  the  last  days  mockers 
shall  come  with  mockery,  walking  after  their  own  lust,  and 
saying,  Where  is  the  promise  of  His  coming ?  for  from  the 
day  that  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they 
were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation."  (2  Pet.  3:1-4). 


Price  15  cents  per  copy;      $12.50  per  hundred 


THE  BIOLA  BOOK  ROOM 

Bible   Institute  of  Los   Angeles 

536-558  South  Hope  Street 

Los   Angeles,   Cal. 


DR.  TORREY'S  BOOKS 


Personal  Work 

The  most  comprehensive  book  that  there  is  on  individual 
dealing  with  men.    It  forms  the  first  part  of  a  book  How  To 
Work  for  Christ 
,.„.,..,.,..,..,,..,,,„».,_.,.„.._,.,,.,,_  $1,00 

Difficulties  and  Alleged 
Contradictions  in  the  Bible 

This  is  one  of  Dr.  Torrey's  most  popular  books,  and 
takes  tip  one  by  one  all  of  the  most  important  objections 
which  the  modern  infidel  urges  against  the  Bible,  24  chapters. 
„..,...»...,.........,.,_,.„.„,„,...„.,. .........Paper,  15cj  cloth,  S&c* 

The  Voice  of  God  in  the  Present  Hour 

By  R  A.  Torrey,  DJD.  A  collection  of  Dr.  Torrey's 
recent  sermons  mostly  bearing  on  conditions  of  the  present 
day.  Dr.  Torrey  has  written  nothing  finer  than  this  latest 
book, 

— — »- - - ...—............Price  $1,23 

Fundamental  Doctrines  of  the  Christian  Faith 

Dr,  Torrey,  as  pastor  of  one  of  the  largest  congrega- 
tions in  America,  found  that  while  his  membership  was  con- 
stantly growing  there  was  an  earnest  call  and  plea  for  instruc- 
tion and  help  to  understand  the  real  basis  of  Christian  Belief. 
The  chapters  of  this  book  delivered  as  sermons  met  with  so 
great  acceptance  that  in  response  to  many  requests  from 
pastors  and  Christians  generally,  they  are  revised  and  issued 
for  wider  service, 
...,...„.,...,..„,..,...,..„.......„„,., ...»....,.Pnc«,  postpaid,  $1 .50. 

THE  BIOLA  BOOK  ROOM 

Bible  Institute  of  Los  Angeles 
536-558  South  Hope  Street,  Los  Angeles,  California, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


FEB   4    193' 


APR241954MJ 


MRS    '65 -3PM 


REC'D  LD 


20w-l,'22 


... 


392686 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


